democracy in america-1-第51章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！



The　authority　which　public　men　possess　in　America　is　so　brief；　and　they　are　so　soon　commingled　with　the　ever…changing　population　of　the　country；　that　the　acts　of　a　community　frequently　leave　fewer　traces　than　the　occurrences　of　a　private　family。　　The　public　administration　is；　so　to　speak；　oral　and　traditionary。　　But　little　is　committed　to　writing；　and　that　little　is　wafted　away　forever；　like　the　leaves　of　the　Sibyl；　by　the　smallest　breeze。

The　only　historical　remains　in　the　United　States　are　the　newspapers；　but　if　a　number　be　wanting；　the　chain　of　time　is　broken；　and　the　present　is　severed　from　the　past。　　I　am　convinced　that　in　fifty　years　it　will　be　more　difficult　to　collect　authentic　documents　concerning　the　social　condition　of　the　Americans　at　the　present　day　than　it　is　to　find　remains　of　the　administration　of　France　during　the　Middle　Ages；　and　if　the　United　States　were　ever　invaded　by　barbarians；　it　would　be　necessary　to　have　recourse　to　the　history　of　other　nations　in　order　to　learn　anything　of　the　people　which　now　inhabits　them。

The　instability　of　the　administration　has　penetrated　into　the　habits　of　the　people：　it　even　appears　to　suit　the　general　taste；　and　no　one　cares　for　what　occurred　before　his　time。　　No　methodical　system　is　pursued；　no　archives　are　formed；　and　no　documents　are　brought　together　when　it　would　be　very　easy　to　do　so。　　Where　they　exist；　little　store　is　set　upon　them；　and　I　have　amongst　my　papers　several　original　public　documents　which　were　given　to　me　in　answer　to　some　of　my　inquiries。　　In　America　society　seems　to　live　from　hand　to　mouth；　like　an　army　in　the　field。　　Nevertheless；　the　art　of　administration　may　undoubtedly　be　ranked　as　a　science；　and　no　sciences　can　be　improved　if　the　discoveries　and　observations　of　successive　generations　are　not　connected　together　in　the　order　in　which　they　occur。　　One　man；　in　the　short　space　of　his　life　remarks　a　fact；　another　conceives　an　idea；　the　former　invents　a　means　of　execution；　the　latter　reduces　a　truth　to　a　fixed　proposition；　and　mankind　gathers　the　fruits　of　individual　experience　upon　its　way　and　gradually　forms　the　sciences。　　But　the　persons　who　conduct　the　administration　in　America　can　seldom　afford　any　instruction　to　each　other；　and　when　they　assume　the　direction　of　society；　they　simply　possess　those　attainments　which　are　most　widely　disseminated　in　the　community；　and　no　experience　peculiar　to　themselves。　　Democracy；　carried　to　its　furthest　limits；　is　therefore　prejudicial　to　the　art　of　government；　and　for　this　reason　it　is　better　adapted　to　a　people　already　versed　in　the　conduct　of　an　administration　than　to　a　nation　which　is　uninitiated　in　public　affairs。

This　remark；　indeed；　is　not　exclusively　applicable　to　the　science　of　administration。　　Although　a　democratic　government　is　founded　upon　a　very　simple　and　natural　principle；　it　always　presupposes　the　existence　of　a　high　degree　of　culture　and　enlightenment　in　society。　*d　At　the　first　glance　it　may　be　imagined　to　belong　to　the　earliest　ages　of　the　world；　but　maturer　observation　will　convince　us　that　it　could　only　come　last　in　the　succession　of　human　history。

＇Footnote　d：　It　is　needless　to　observe　that　I　speak　here　of　the　democratic　form　of　government　as　applied　to　a　people；　not　merely　to　a　tribe。＇

Charges　Levied　By　The　State　Under　The　Rule　Of　The　American　Democracy

In　all　communities　citizens　divisible　into　three　classes　…　Habits　of　each　of　these　classes　in　the　direction　of　public　finances　…　Why　public　expenditure　must　tend　to　increase　when　the　people　governs　…　What　renders　the　extravagance　of　a　democracy　less　to　be　feared　in　America　…　Public　expenditure　under　a　democracy。

Before　we　can　affirm　whether　a　democratic　form　of　government　is　economical　or　not；　we　must　establish　a　suitable　standard　of　comparison。　　The　question　would　be　one　of　easy　solution　if　we　were　to　attempt　to　draw　a　parallel　between　a　democratic　republic　and　an　absolute　monarchy。　　The　public　expenditure　would　be　found　to　be　more　considerable　under　the　former　than　under　the　latter；　such　is　the　case　with　all　free　States　compared　to　those　which　are　not　so。　　It　is　certain　that　despotism　ruins　individuals　by　preventing　them　from　producing　wealth；　much　more　than　by　depriving　them　of　the　wealth　they　have　produced；　it　dries　up　the　source　of　riches；　whilst　it　usually　respects　acquired　property。　　Freedom；　on　the　contrary；　engenders　far　more　benefits　than　it　destroys；　and　the　nations　which　are　favored　by　free　institutions　invariably　find　that　their　resources　increase　even　more　rapidly　than　their　taxes。

My　present　object　is　to　compare　free　nations　to　each　other；　and　to　point　out　the　influence　of　democracy　upon　the　finances　of　a　State。

Communities；　as　well　as　organic　bodies；　are　subject　to　certain　fixed　rules　in　their　formation　which　they　cannot　evade。　　They　are　composed　of　certain　elements　which　are　common　to　them　at　all　times　and　under　all　circumstances。　　The　people　may　always　be　mentally　divided　into　three　distinct　classes。　　The　first　of　these　classes　consists　of　the　wealthy；　the　second；　of　those　who　are　in　easy　circumstances；　and　the　third　is　composed　of　those　who　have　little　or　no　property；　and　who　subsist　more　especially　by　the　work　which　they　perform　for　the　two　superior　orders。　　The　proportion　of　the　individuals　who　are　included　in　these　three　divisions　may　vary　according　to　the　condition　of　society；　but　the　divisions　themselves　can　never　be　obliterated。

It　is　evident　that　each　of　these　classes　will　exercise　an　influence　peculiar　to　its　own　propensities　upon　the　administration　of　the　finances　of　the　State。　　If　the　first　of　the　three　exclusively　possesses　the　legislative　power；　it　is　probable　that　it　will　not　be　sparing　of　the　public　funds；　because　the　taxes　which　are　levied　on　a　large　fortune　only　tend　to　diminish　the　sum　of　superfluous　enjoyment；　and　are；　in　point　of　fact；　but　little　felt。　If　the　second　class　has　the　power　of　making　the　laws；　it　will　certainly　not　be　lavish　of　taxes；　because　nothing　is　so　onerous　as　a　large　impost　which　is　levied　upon　a　small　income。　The　government　of　the　middle　classes　appears　to　me　to　be　the　most　economical；　though　perhaps　not　the　most　enlightened；　and　certainly　not　the　most　generous；　of　free　governments。

But　let　us　now　suppose　that　the　legislative　authority　is　vested　in　the　lowest　orders：　there　are　two　striking　reasons　which　show　that　the　tendency　of　the　expenditure　will　be　to　increase；　not　to　diminish。　　As　the　great　majority　of　those　who　create　the　laws　are　possessed　of　no　property　upon　which　taxes　can　be　imposed；　all　the　money　which　is　spent　for　the　community　appears　to　be　spent　to　their　advantage；　at　no　cost　of　their　own；　and　those　who　are　possessed　of　some　little　property　readily　find　means　of　regulating　the　taxes　so　that　they　are　burdensome　to　the　wealthy　and　profitable　to　the　poor；　although　the　rich　are　unable　to　take　the　same　advantage　when　they　are　in　possession　of　the　Government。

In　countries　in　which　the　poor　*e　should　be　exclusively　invested　with　the　power　of　making　the　laws　no　great　economy　of　public　expenditure　ought　to　be　expected：　that　expenditure　will　always　be　considerable；　either　because　the　taxes　do　not　weigh　upon　those　who　levy　them；　or　because　they　are　levied　in　such　a　manner　as　not　to　weigh　upon　those　classes。　　In　other　words；　the　government　of　the　democracy　is　the　only　one　under　which　the　power　which　lays　on　taxes　escapes　the　payment　of　them。

＇Footnote　e：　The　word　poor　is　used　here；　and　throughout　the　remainder　of　this　chapter；　in　a　relative；　not　in　an　absolute　sense。　　Poor　men　in　America　would　often　appear　rich　in　comparison　with　the　poor　of　Europe；　but　they　may　with　propriety　by　styled　poor　in　comparison　with　their　more　affluent　countrymen。＇

It　may　be　objected　（but　the　argument　has　no　real　weight）　that　the　true　interest　of　the　people　is　indissolubly　connected　with　that　of　the　wealthier　portion　of　the　community；　since　it　cannot　but　suffer　by　the　severe　measures　to　which　it　resorts。　　But　is　it　not　the　true　interest　of　kings　to　render　their　subjects　happy；　and　the　true　interest　of　nobles　to　admit　recruits　into　their　order　on　suitable　grounds？　　If　remote　advantages　had　power　to　prevail　over　the　passions　and　the　exigencies　of　the　moment；　no　such　thing　as　a　tyrannical　sovereign　or　an　exclusive　aristocracy　could　ever　exist。　

Again；　it　may　be　objected　that　the　poor　are　never　invested　with　the　sole　power　of　making　the　laws；　but　I　reply；　that　wherever　universal　suffrage　has　been　established　the　majority　of　the　community　unquestionably　exercises　the　legislative　authority；　and　if　it　be　proved　that　the　poor　always　constitute　the　majority；　it　may　be　added；　with　perfect　truth；　that　in　the　countries　in　which　they　possess　the　elective　franchise　they　possess　the　sole　power　of　making　laws。　　But　it　is　certain　that　in　all　the　nations　of　the　world　the　greater　number　has　always　consisted　of　those　persons　who　hold　no　property；　or　of　those　whose　property　is　insufficient　to　exempt　them　from　the　necessity　of　working　in　order　to　procure　an　easy　subsistence。　　Universal　suffrage　does　therefore；　in　point　of　fact；　invest　the　poor　with　the　government　of　society。

The　disastrous　influence　which　popular　authority　may　sometimes　exercise　upon　the　finances　of　a　State　was　very　clearly　seen　in　some　of　the　democratic　republics　of　antiquity；　in　which　the　public　treasure　was　exhausted　in　order　to　relieve　indigent　citizens；　or　to　supply　the　games　and　theatrical　amusements　of　the　populace。　　It　is　true　that　the　representative　system　was　then　very　imperfectly　known；　and　that；　at　the　present　time；　the　influence　of　popular　passion　is　less　felt　in　the　conduct　of　public　affairs；　but　it　may　be　believed　that　the　delegate　will　in　the　end　conform　to　the　principles　of　his　constituents；　and　favor　their　propensities　as　much　as　their　interests。

The　extravagance　of　democracy　is；　however；　less　to　be　dreaded　in　proportion　as　the　people　acquires　a　share　of　property；　because　on　the　one　hand　the　contributions　of　the　rich　are　then　less　needed；　and；　on　the　other；　it　is　more　difficult　to　lay　on　taxes　which　do　not　affect　the　interests　of　the　lower　classes。　　On　this　account　universal　suffrage　would　be　less　dangerous　in　France　than　in　England；　because　in　the　latter　country　the　property　on　which　taxes　may　be　levied　is　vested　in　fewer　hands。　　America；　where　the　great　majority　of　the　citizens　possess　some　fortune；　is　in　a　still　more　favorable　position　than　France。

There　are　still　further　causes　which　may　increase　the　sum　of　public　expenditure　in　democratic　countries。　　When　the　aristocracy　governs；　the　individuals　who　conduct　the　affairs　of　State　are　exempted　by　their　own　station　in　society　from　every　kind　of　privation；　they　are　contented　with　their　position；　power　and　renown　are　the　objects　for　which　they　strive；　and；　as　they　are　placed　far　above　the　obscurer　throng　of　citizens；　they　do　not　always　distinctly　perceive　how　the　well…being　of　the　mass　of　the　people　ought　to　redound　to　their　own　honor。　　They　are　not　indeed　callous　to　the　sufferings　of　the　poor；　but　they　cannot　feel　those　miseries　as　acutely　as　if　they　were　themselves　partakers　of　them。　　Provided　that　the　people　appear　to　submit　to　its　lot；　the　rulers　are　satisfied；　and　they　demand　nothing　further　from　the　Government。　　An　aristocracy　is　more　intent　upon　the　means　o